850 So. 2d 751 - State v. White’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

9 state decisions

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 9 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “In the present case, the state presented expert scientific evidence that the substance contained in the small plastic bag recovered from the police car was cocaine and that the defendant's DNA was found inside that bag. A reasonable juror could conclude that the presence of the defendant's DNA in the bag of cocaine was sufficient to prove direct physical contact with and control of the drug. This evidence also proved that the cocaine was subject to defendant's dominion and control and that he knew of its existence. Thus, the trier of fact could reasonably conclude that the state established defendant's actual and constructive possession of the cocaine. In addition, the arresting officer testified that he always searched the passenger compartment of his police vehicle before and after transporting criminals and that he had searched the defendant (but not his mouth) before placing him in the backseat. After the defendant was transported to the police station, a search of the backseat area revealed an unsealed bag of cocaine, which the state proved contained the defendant's DNA. These circumstances support the inference that the defendant held the small, open bag of cocaine in his mouth and spit it out onto the floor of the police vehicle in an effort to avoid detection because of his guilty knowledge that he was in possession of the illegal substance. Viewed in the light most favorable to the prosecution, the evidence presented was sufficient for a rational trier of fact to con”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Senegal

2. “will inquire into the remark's intended effect on the jury in order to distinguish indirect references to the defendant's failure to testify from statements that are not about defendant's failure to testify.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Robinson

3. “[t]he comment that counsel has a `feeling' about a particular juror is not a sufficiently race-neutral explanation.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 951 So. 2d 138 - Alex v. Rayne Concrete Service